Since no one else will do their homework:

First to Titus - try going under "tools", then Internet options, then delete, then click "delete files." Your Internet copy files, automatically generated, are too backed up to allow the cookie for the Bund to function properly. Do that every so often and you will post under the correct date. I had to do that for 3 months, and then one day it stopped.

****
Now I assume Titus had the same conversation I did with Jambo, over the phone, about the Phil Graham bill which more and more people are pointing to as to what set the housing market up for a collapse. Also, they are pointing to Graham for authoring the bill which deregulated the oil speculation markets among other things. Phil can't catch a break, and it is hurting McCain. That's why I should be on the McCain-Palin payroll. To the video tape!

****
First, the the Graham bill related to the housing market.

Jambo's NPR claims its passage allowed for things such as "life of loan profit guarantees." Now that's my phrase because its more accurate in my estimation. In short when a private citizen enters into a mortgage, the mortgage company seals the deal with that person then immediately sells it to a big mortgage investment firm such as Freddie Mac (housing market firm created by congress to help ensure the US remained flush with homeowners). However, the market from the 90's through 2006 (the year the housing market bubble burst) was SO good that these smaller companies whom sold the mortgage to groups like Freddie were able to sell "profit guarantees" along with the mortgage for a premium payed on top of the loan purchase. So if a loan for 250k was set up to make 400k over its 30 year life, that smaller company who made the original loan deal would say to Freddie when they sold it to them, "hey, for an extra 30k we will guarantee your 400k at the end of the loan will have been collected." It was like selling insurance to the player on blackjack - it's an amount that by and large goes straight to the bottom line with next to no risk for the seller - so they thought. Because the housing market was so good these companies assumed they would rarely have to make good on that guarantee because even if a home foreclosed Freddie would make its 400k on a sale because the equity was building so rapidly. Then what happens? The market bursts, the home value drops and Freddie comes looking for their "profit guarantee" because first the home forecloses, then it can't be sold for the profit of 400k. BUT, now the guarantee can't be met because that company who sold it is getting hammered on those requests at a rate higher then they can handle - because of how sudden the collapse came, and how sharply home values fell. Everyone is either stuck with having to sell low after buying high, or declaring bankruptcy or both. This reverberates into the lending market as credit card payments come later and later as people look to credit to cover themselves while sitting on bad houses, then large banks start sitting on their capital because they're scared they won't get it back, and groups like AIG, Lehman, etc can't get the traditional bridge loans to cover bear market periods. Dominoes.

NOW - I ripped Obama for employing Franklin Raines, whom ran "Freddie" into the ground. And I still contend, as I told Jambo last night, that no law regulation or deregulation will ever account for bad CEO management (which is what Raines did, criminally in my opinion). So regardless of what laws were on the books, as much if not more fault is with those CEO's that took an ill advised advantage of looser regulation laws.

So, as to what laws "allowed" or set the environment for this to happen? Or in other words the other responsible party here (aside from unscrupulous CEO's such as Raines) would be the federal government. And YES, it was originated with Graham. But only him? Hardly. This is a bipartisan screw up, and if one party is to blame over the other then I would have to invoke the unwritten rule that whichever PoTUS signed it into law, he owns it - for better or worse. That's what we say right? If its on his watch he gets the credit or blame? With that as a background lets briefly visit the Grahm bill that NPR et al seek to blame for the current financial woes (minus oil - we will get to that in a minute, although that also involves Grahm).

In 1933, obviously just a few years following the stock market crash, Congress passes the Glass-Steagall Act, in hopes that regulating banks will help prevent market instability, particularly amongst Wall Street banks. The purpose of the act was to separate commercial banks that focus on consumers from investment banks, which deal with speculative trading and mergers. Well, in 1999 Grahm proposes a bipartisan bill entitled Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. which effectively replaced the Glass Steagall era practices. Here was its' pro argument:

Although not perfect, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (S. 900) would repeal provisions of the obsolete, Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act that prohibits banks and securities firms from owning each other, say Heritage Foundation analysts. Congress will soon consider the conference report on the bill developed by Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas), and Representatives Jim Leach (R-Iowa.), Thomas Bliley (R-Va.).

If the bill becomes law, new financial services holding companies would be allowed to own separate banking, securities, and insurance subsidiaries that could offer integrated retail services to consumers.

In addition, some of the worst abuses of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) -- which requires banks to make uneconomic investments in disadvantaged neighborhoods -- would be corrected.

Banks with under $250 million in assets that have an "outstanding" or "satisfactory" CRA rating would be examined less frequently than under current law -- significantly reducing the regulatory burden.

And banks would be required to disclose payments to so-called community groups that challenge applications for bank mergers and can seriously delay the approval process.
However, the bill would expand CRA to cover bank affiliates of financial services holding companies.

Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin estimated consumers would save $15 billion a year in fees levied on financial services thanks to greater competition and a more efficient financial services system.

Now clearly the law of unintended consequences (from a legislatures point of view) came into fruition regarding the problems such as these "profit guarantees", to ill advised ventures into sub-prime lending, and interest only loans. And hey, people can legitimately argue whether the 1933 law, or the 1999 law is preferable - more or less regulation is not what I'm arguing. Although I will say that the housing market boom intensified after 1999. Many people got rich do to deregulation of financial institutions, and "common" people too. Anyone whom invested in real estate basically. But as I said, that's a separate argument - what we are talking here, what NPR sought to discover (in my opinion) is whom is to blame. The reality is both Obama and McCain currently employ senior economic advisers whom are neck deep in this, one on the legislative side and the other on the corporate management side. HOWEVER - if we are talking blame, remind me who was president in 1999? Hum the Jeopardy music while you think ... dee, dee, dee doo dee dee dee ... William Jefferson Clinton signed this bill into law DEREGULATING the financial and lending markets within the US. Bill Clinton! Now here you have everybody from NPR to Harry Reid to Obama running around screaming and pointing fingers at Grahm (which is not-so-implicitly scolding McCain for employing him), when it was Bill Clinton that signed this deregulation bill into law. And even more hypocritical - that bill passed 90 to 8. Harry Reid voted for it. Now I know Titus's point in an earlier post was that Reid et al aren't running for PoTUS, and that's fine. But Obama has been in the Senate since 2004. In 2005 the negative side effects of the CLINTON signed Graham bill began to become evident in terms of Frediie and Fannie and John McCain stood up and tried to reform those institutions that took ill advised advantage of that bill. Obama was no where on the issue (and for an obvious reason given he was the #2 recipient of their donations). And his economic advisor is one of those CEO's whom unscrupulously took that advantage. Chriss Dodd, Barak Obama, and Barney Frank - all Democrats, one running for president, protected the most blatant example of a company that took unscrupulous advantage of the Graham bill - Freddie Mac. They blocked GOP sponsored legislation in 2003 and 2005 which would have increased oversight and instituted reform.

Now - we can say that the bill was "too much" deregulation and blame law makers. It's not an unreasonable assertion. We can look at who took advantage of that deregulation and blame the borderline criminal behavior of CEO's and the Democrat politicians that protected them. Also reasonable. But what we can not do, in a bill passed 90 to 8, sponsored by a Republican, and signed into law by a Democrat president, is to say that it is Phil Graham's fault alone! It's patently absurd. This is a bipartisan issue within both the federal government and the private sector .... ALL of their hands are dirty. And THAT my friends is why we will get hearings on whether Bonds shot roids into his left or right butt cheeck, but we will NOT get hearings on this.

****
To the deregulation of oil speculation.

First things first, lets define it: as part of a $384 billion Omnibus Spending Bill (sets the budget of many departments of the United States government at once) Phil Graham introduced an amendment which became part of the bill - The Commodity Futures Modernization Act. The essence of the act was the deregulation of derivatives trading ("financial instruments whose value changes in response to the changes in underlying variables; the main use of derivatives is to reduce risk for one party"). Ok? In English that includes, most prominently, oil speculation was deregulated.

Now this has also been blamed on Graham and Bush. The reports I've seen have listed the time frame as: "shortly after Bush was elected president." Which IS technically true. It WAS in fact signed into law, thus deregulating oil speculation, shortly after Bush was elected president ..... ELECT!! It was signed into law in December of 2000 by none other then William Jefferson Clinton! Bush of course took his oath of office a month later! Now he certainly maintained it in each Omnibus Spending bill since, no question. But lets be fair - this originated, (read: SIGNED into law) with Bill Clinton. Thus, according to "the rules", HE OWNS IT. Again, yes Graham and the GOP controlled congress is to blame as well, but again I emphasize that its a bipartisan problem, and again, I say THAT is why we will get zero hearings on speculation. They'll haul oil CEO's in all day, but speculators need not worry, I assure you.

****
Now, by my count NPR is clearly biased (no news there) on whom is to blame (in total). And both Jambo and Titus owe Bush an apology - or at least an amendment to their assertion that oil deregulation was his genesis.